324,000 women dropped out of the nation’s civilian labor force in March and April as the number of women not in the labor force hit an all-time historical high of 53,321,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What Jeffrey doesn't tell you: According to the BLS statistics he cites -- which he links to in the first paragraph of his article -- the nmber of women not in the labor force has been on a steady increase since 1999.

Further, Jeffrey concedes later in his article that the number of women in the workforce is near historic highs, and it hit a historic high in February.

While Jeffrey does not mention Obama in his article, it's clear that's who he wants to blame for this, given the prominent picture of Obama at the top of his article:

So, what we have here is Jeffrey once again using his purported "news" website to indulge his personal hatred of Obama. Talk about unprofessional behavior.

Did Minister Sabotage His YouTube Account To Promote His WND Book?Topic: WorldNetDaily

Last week, we detailed how WorldNetDaily promoted the story of YouTube suspending the channel of "ministry" PPSimmons -- which once claimed that President Obama is the Antichrist and has made numerous birther videos -- while failing to disclose that WND is publishing a book by PPSimmons' leader, Carl Gallups, later this month. That got us to wondering if the shutdown was provoked in order to promote the book.

Now, a May 8 WND article by Michael Thompson informs us that YouTube has restored the PPSimmons channel after "a firestorm of protest from the more than 21,000 subscribers to the PPSimmons YouTube Channel." Thompson includes this interesting tidbit:

“After the outrage created by the WND story, my ministry was bombarded with emails and requests for me to appear on radio programs to discuss what happened and the outpouring of support was just tremendous,” said Gallups.

“Well, one of the emails we got was from a fan of the PPSimmons YouTube Channel who knew someone that worked at Google’s headquarters in Silicon Valley. That person investigated why our channel was taken down and found out that we were targeted in a mass ‘flagging’ campaign,” Gallups said.

All videos that are posted on YouTube can be rated by those who view it; an individual can click the “like” button (a “thumbs up” icon); or they can click the dislike button (a “thumbs down” icon); they can click an icon a “flag” to alert YouTube that the video they just viewed needs to be “flagged as inappropriate.”

The source inside Google, who must remain anonymous, told Gallups that a “coordinated flagging” campaign had occurred, which triggered the channel to be pulled.

That tells us how easy it is to provoke YouTube into suspending the account. That "coordinated flagging" campaign -- neither Gallups nor Thompson offer any evidence that anyone actually called for one -- could just as easily been conducted by Gallups and WND, with the explicit intent of exploting the controversy in order to promote Gallups' book "The Magic Man in the Sky." Thompson makes sure to prominently plug the book in the second paragraph of his article and, again, fails to disclose that it's published by WND.

If you think WND is not capable of such underhanded tactics to promote something, you haven't been observing WND. In 2008, for example, WND was practically begging for Muslims to riot over its placing of an image of Muhammad on the cover of its 2008 book "Why We Left Islam." But even Muslim extremists don't care what WND does.

Underhanded tactics are practically WND's modus operandi. There's no reason not to assume that this is yet another one.

NewsBusters Hates It When Conservatives Get Fact-CheckedTopic: NewsBusters

We've documented how the Media Research Center's "Tell the Truth!" campaign really means it doesn't want the truth told about conservatives. We see that again in a May 9 NewsBusters post, in which Matthew Sheffield claims that fact-checking has a liberal bias.

No, really.

Sheffield rails against the Washington Post's fact-check of an Americans for Prosperity attacking the stimulus bill for allegedly giving more than $2 billion to "foreign companies," forwhich the Post gave the ad four Pinnochios. Sheffield claimed the Post fact-check was "a pro-Obama puff piece" with the goal of "protect[ing] the Obama legacy," adding:

The “fact-checking” label they slapped onto their article was itself a lie, but these days the liberal media uses the “fact-check” label as a fig leaf to cover its partisan biases and mislead readers and viewers into thinking they are getting an unbiased, factual investigation of the truthfulness of political ads.

But Sheffield's attack on the fact-check is deceptive. He insists that the claim of $2 billion in stimulus money going to "foreign companies" is a "fact," and that the Post "neither fact-checked the ad nor debunked it." Sheffield never directly quotes from the fact-check, which means he's hiding the fact that it did address the ad's claims, including that one:

First of all, we live in a globalized world. American companies make products overseas; foreign companies make products in the United States. Sometimes parts are made in a variety of places overseas and then assembled in the United States. That’s a fact of life, and these ads frequently confuse the difference, so that any hint of foreign involvement is depicted as a bad thing.

Both ads cite the same source — a Washington Times article from Sept. 9, 2010 — for the claim that “jobs were sent overseas” (American Future Fund, which displays a Chinese flag when those words are said) or that “$2.3 billion of taxpayer credits went overseas while millions of Americans can’t find a job” (Americans for Prosperity).

The article actually said that the tax credits “went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries including China, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.”

That’s different from saying the money went overseas; it is talking about companies based overseas. Indeed, the original source for that information was American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop, and its reporting was much more nuanced. Its reports noted, for instance, that foreign-owned firms already dominate the market for wind turbines. In some cases, the firms have U.S. facilities or U.S. subsidiaries, which then assemble the turbines with foreign-made parts. So most of the jobs are in the United States, not overseas.

Indeed, the Post went on to specifically address other claims in the ad, contrary to Sheffield's assertion:

Similar faulty reasoning extends to other claims in the ads. Americans for Prosperity says that “$1.2 billion [went] to a solar company building a plant in Mexico.” So what? The stimulus money went to a solar plant in California; the Mexican plant is simply another investment.

Another claim — “half a billion to a car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland” — cites ABC News. That report focused on the fact that engineering and tooling work for a new electric vehicle — funded through the Energy Department — was being done in the United States, but that the vehicles are being assembled at a plant in Finland because the United States did not have right facilities. But ABC noted that Fisker will “ultimately produce 2,500 more jobs when Fisker builds a lower-priced version of the car in Delaware.”

Americans for Prosperity also asserts that the stimulus bill sent “tens of millions of dollars to build traffic lights in China.” The source is the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, but again, the article was much more nuanced. The traffic lights are for the United States market, but the article noted that there is a shortage of American-made light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, so parts are sourced overseas while the lights were assembled in the United States.

[...]

One can certainly raise questions about how stimulus funding was used and whether it was effective. But there is no excuse for these kinds of ads, which take facts out of context or simply invent them. These groups should be especially ashamed, given that these claims have been previously debunked, or, in the case of the erroneous ABC report, withdrawn.

Sheffield is simply lying about the Post fact-check. Yet he asserts that "the verdicts of the 'fact-checkers' must be fact-checked, too."

WND's Farah Laments He Can't 'String Up' Alinsky For Not Thinking Like He DoesTopic: WorldNetDaily

Joseph Farah uses his May 7 WorldNetDailiy column to argue that Satan was the first leftist, citing as evidence Saul Alinsky's "over-the-shoulder acknowledgment" to Lucifer as "the very first radical" in his book "Rules for Radicals." Farah then laments that he can't "string up" Alinsky:

Lucifer was the first radical, the first rebel, the first opponent of God’s order. And even a pedigreed lefty like Alinsky agreed they were kindred spirits.

It may be too late to string up Alinsky. It may be too late to string up the agitators of the French Revolution. It may be too late to string up Karl Marx or Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler (another lefty, by the way) or V.I. Lenin or Mao.

Farah doesn't identify any offense Alinsky committed that would require him to be "strung up." Organizing powerless people to work in their best interests? That's not a crime, let along anything akin to what Hitler or Stalin did.

Which means Farah wants to "string up" Alinsky for disagreeing with him. That's not a crime either, however much Farah might want it to be.

NEW ARTICLE: CNS Goes Bottom-Feeding for ReadersTopic: CNSNews.com
Under Terry Jeffrey, CNSNews.com is becoming a propaganda mill that attracts racist, misogynistic and homophobic readers to its comment threads. Read more >>

New Book By Ex-Posse Member Slams Birther Probe; Will WND Report?Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joining John Woodman's birther debunking and Phil Berg's detonation of the idea that President Obama is using a fake Social Security, WorldNetDaily has another anti-birther story it must endeavor to ignore: A new e-book slamming the cold case posse "investigation" of Obama's "eligibility," written by a former member of the posse.

As Phoenix New Times details, Michelle Dallacroce co-wrote the book. She attacks the investigation has having been hijacked by ideologues, specifically stating that the Surprise Tea Party was using Arpaio as part of a publicity stunt in one press conference in order to gather signatures for a birther bill.

As we've documented, WND has worked with the Surprise Tea Party to manipulate Arpaio into doing his posse "investigation." WND's Jerome Corsi gave his birther presentation to the tea party group, which then gathered signatures on a petition to ask Arpaio to look into it.

Dallacroce also claims that Arpaio has granted Corsi "special deputy" status -- which means, according to New Times, that "a man claiming to be an 'investigative reporter' was made a 'special deputy,' given material from an investigation that hasn't been released to the public, and co-author a book with the lead investigator that's being sold for profit."

That also dovetails nicely with how WND has clearly been collaborating with Arpaio to release details of the "investigation" as Corsi pens fluff piece after fluff piece about the sheriff.

Phoenix New Times also notes that Arpaio refuses to answer the question of whether he granted Corsi "special deputy" status. Arpaio has also denounced the book, while also admitting he hasn't read it.

Given WND's penchant for ignoring or burying anything that contradicts its birther conspiracy narrative, we can expect it to ignore the question of whether Corsi was made a "special deputy" for as long as humanly possible.

In a May 8 NewsBusters post, Matthew Sheffield quotes from an Accuracy in Media article by Cliff Kincaid noting a statement by Fox News that Jehmu Greene will not be fired as a Fox commentator for likening Tucker Carlson to a "bow-tying white boy."

WorldNetDaily's Joe Kovacs, it seems, has had enough of the conspiracy suggesting that President Obama had a hand in killing a medical examiner in California. So he's passed the story on to someone with even fewer scruples and less ethical integrity than him: Jerome Corsi.

And so, we have a May 7 WND article in which Corsi tries to make something out of even more nothing that Kovacs had: the apparent disappearance of "the only eyewitness to the sudden death of media innovator and conservative activist Andrew Breitbart." This is all so stupid that Breitbart's allies want nothing whatsoever to do with Corsi's obsession:

Filmmaker Steve Bannon, appointed executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network after Breitbart’s death, has insisted to WND that the media mogul died of natural causes and to suggest anything else is irresponsible.

“Breitbart had an enlarged heart,” Bannon told WND. “He had been hospitalized for the problem last year and told to lose weight that he did not lose.”

Because this is Corsi, however, the facts do not matter. He returns to hinting -- without any evidence whatsoever -- that Obama had something to do with some of this. He fails to mention, as Kovacs failed before him, that the medical examiner who died had nothing to do with Breitbart's autopsy.

Is this more of the "real news" Kovacs claimed to be so proud to report as a WND employee? Or has WND in full super PAC mode?

Mychal Massie isn't the only person in the ConWeb to take offense at Jehmu Greene referring to Tucker Carlson as a “bow-tying white boy.” While Massie channels Bull Connor, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid finds his own racist to invoke.

In a May 7 AIM article, Kincaid brings in Jared Taylor of American Renaissance to weigh in on the subject:

“There is an obvious double standard according to which blacks needn’t worry about showing the kind of ‘racial sensitivity’ that is always required of whites,” says Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, an organization that is often criticized by the Left for examining racial issues from the point of view of white self-interest. Taylor’s book, White Identity, argues that whites should not be afraid to exercise the same rights as other racial and groups.

Taylor told AIM that the double-standard that guides media coverage of racial controversies excuses racially-charged comments like those of Jehmu Greene as well as Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC.

As we pointed out the last time Kincaid did this, the Anti-Defamation League calls American Renaissance a "white supremacist journal" that "promotes pseudoscientific studies that attempt to demonstrate the intellectual and cultural superiority of whites and publishes articles on the supposed decline of American society because of integrationist social policies." Taylor himself has declared that we don't "need more Hispanics" and attacked Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for not "pronouncing her name the way an American would."

Kincaid laughably insisted that "there is no evidence that American Renaissance by any objective standard is a racist organization" and that it merely deals with racial issues just like the Congressional Black Caucus -- a claim he walked back a few days later.

Despite his own embrace of a racist, Kincaid insists that Greene is the racist one here.

Meanwhile, if Kincaid was really concerned about racist remarks on Fox News, wouldn't he have complained by now about Brent Bozell calling Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead"?

A few years back, Mychal Massie used his WorldNetDaily column to accuse Sen. Harry Reid of sounding like "His Uncle Bull Connors [sic] and his Uncle Orval Faubus" for committing the offense of criticizing Clarence Thomas. So it's sadly funny to see that the person who has come to truly emulate the likes of Connor and Faubus is Massie himself.

In his May 7 column, Massie bizarrely refers to Jehmu Greene -- who recently got into trouble for calling Tucker Carlson a "bow-tying white boy" -- as a "Negress." That, of course, is an archaic term dating from the era of segregation. In other words, the kind of word a Connors or a Faubus would use.

Massie seems to delight in this sort of thing -- saying things that would be considered screechingly racist if he were not black. For instance, there's Massie's obsession with labeling Michelle Obama as "Buttzilla." If a white man did that, he would be hounded out of the public square. But Massie does it with impunity, and WND continues to publish his increasingly hateful and bitter column.

But WND loves hate and bitterness when it's directed at the Obama, and Massie delivers that in spades.

The first thing you realize when reading the May 7 NewsBusters post about Noel Sheppard's appearance on CNN to discuss the resignation of Richard Grenell from Mitt Romney's campaign is that, despite the "NB Staff" byline, it's pretty clear it was written by Sheppard himself. The phrase "video follows with transcript and commentary" appears here as it does in most Sheppard posts, and the attention lavished on further elucidating on what Sheppard said could only have been done by someone with a personal stake in it. Like, you know, Noel Sheppard.

The second thing you notice is that Sheppard got it all wrong. He repeatedly blames "the Obama-loving media," including the host for his on-air discussion, CNN's Don Lemon, for making Grenell an issue as a distraction from reporting on the economy:

It’s the media that made it a gay rights issue because they’d rather talk about anything other than how lousy the economy is.

Consider that this discussion took place the day after the Labor Department released horrible numbers about job creations in April. There were other terrible economic stats that emerged in the prior week involving real estate, durable goods, consumer spending, as well as the very disappointing first quarter GDP estimate.

Instead of discussing those issues Saturday night – issues that every poll including the one Sheppard referred to show are front and center on the minds of the American people – Lemon chose to address a social issue that although important doesn’t appear on most national priority surveys.

This of course is what the media have been doing all year beginning with the contraception issue in January to the student loan issue last month and now Romney’s gay adviser.

Everything is important to the media EXCEPT the state of the economy.

Sheppard went on to insist, "It was Grenell's decision to resign. There’s absolutely no evidence that he did so due to pressure from either Romney or the campaign." Never mind the fact that nobody, including Sheppard, knows what actually went on behind the scenes.

But Sheppard conveniently ignores who made a big issue out of Grenell's sexuality in the first place -- right-wing activists like Bryan Fischer and Sheppard's MRC colleague Dan Gainor. If Grenell's sexuality wasn't a big deal as Sheppard claimed, why did Fischer and Gainor make it one? Sheppard might want to ask Gainor about that the next time they pass in the hallway at MRC headquarters.

And Sheppard's furious spinning on this tells us that all his ranting about how "the media" would rather talk about anything but the economy is a smokescreen for the fact that Sheppard would rather talk about anything but right-wing homophobia.

After all, Sheppard's employer does have a pretty obvious anti-gay agenda, which was further exemplified by Gainor's anti-Grenell activism. And despite Sheppard claiming that "the media" are seizing on this issue to "try to make Romney appear as a homophobe who's opposed to gay rights issues," it's obvious Romney was under pressure by anti-gay activists whose votes he needs to get rid of Grenell. Neither liberals nor "the media" were pressuring Romney.

This is the problem with the MRC, as we've detailed -- everything can, and must, be blamed on "liberal media bias," even when the facts show otherwise.

Les Kinsolving, it seems, just can't stop whining that he's not treated with the respect he hasn't earned.

This latest round of whining comes in the form of a May 3 WND article complaining that "Even on World Press Freedom Day, Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House and the second most-senior reporter on the beat behind only Connie Lawn, was not allowed by press secretary Jay Carney to ask any questions."

It's never explained why Kinsolving deserved to be called upon on World Press Freedom Day -- or any day, for that matter. As we've detailed, Kinsolving's penchant for right-wing hackery (not to mention his raging homophobia) means he has earned the contempt in which he's treated. Whether Kinsolving is "the second most-senior reporter on the beat" is irrelevent.

More NewsBusters Heathering, Now With Added Class WarfareTopic: NewsBusters

NewsBusters loves to go all Heather on conservatives who are not dogmatically so, and one of their favorite targets is New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Tim Graham has decided to go the class-warfare route in his latest Heathering of Brooks, writing about him buying a new, pricey house under the headline "David Brooks Is In 'The One Percent.'"Um, aren't right-wingers like Graham supposed to celebrate rich people?

Graham put "conservative" in scare quotes when describingBrooks, but he also noted that "Brooks outraged Occupy types last October in a column attacking the '99 percent' concept." But doesn't being rich and mocking the poor make Brooks exactly the kind of conservative Graham is supposed to like?

Ellis Washington Channels His Fantasy Version of Socrates AgainTopic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's Ellis Washington is back with another one of his so-called "dialectics" in which he masquerades as a smack-talkin', right-wing-shillin' Socrates. Try to imagine the actual Socrates saying this:

Socrates: We are gathered here today at this Symposium to discuss various tactics and strategies radicals have used to denigrate, deconstruct and destroy America – the greatest nation in the history of the world. In a previous Symposium, “The damnation of ideas,” we discussed the differences between ideas that uplift society and those that damn society in the context of 10 infamous writers and their most controversial books, and discussed whether these books have either elevated society to ascend the steps of Parnassus or condemned society into the pit of Tartarus.

Today we will examine the people and radical governmental agencies that come from those infamous ideas that collectively have caused the damnation of modern society. How would you achieve this goal, if you wanted America to fail?

As usual, Washington sets up anyone opposed to his -- er, "Socrates'" -- right-wing ideology as straw men easily knocked down by the power of alleged "truth." For instance, there's this:

Dr. NEA: Although my fascist organization was birthed in 1978 concomitant with the creation of President Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education, my real birth occurred over 150 years ago in 1857 by a small but zealous group of radical atheists, humanists, Marxist and progressives dedicated to forever separating education from morality, truth and the canon.

Would the real, truth-seeking Socrates engaged in such ad hominem and factually misleading attacks? Probably not.

Washington also bizarrely puts Saul Alinsky -- who was not a dictator and never ordered anyone's death -- on the same plane as Marx, Lenin and Hitler.

Washington's pretention is amazing, even for someone best known for getting things flamboyantly wrong. There are few people so stupid as those who insist on masquerading as one of history's greatest intellectuals and philosophers.

CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey uses his May 3 column to fret ab out the future of journalism, because "We live in a nation where the government is growing exponentially and the press is shrinking steadily." He goes on to write:

But anyone who wants America to remain free cannot cheer the demise of the press as an institution. We need more reporters — especially reporters who love liberty and want to defend it — not fewer.

It may be a mistake for Americans to blithely accept the unexamined conclusion that the new electronic media, because of their speed and wide availability, will compensate for the virtual extinction of old-time reporters. Excellent reporting takes time and skills learned through experience — both of which require investment.

That's quite rich of Jeffrey to be concerned. After all, the organization he works for, the Media Research Center, has spent millions of dollars over the past couple of decades trying to undermine people's trust in the media in order to advance its partisan right-wing agenda.

Further, Jeffrey himself is no journalist -- he's a propagandist and rabid Obama-hater who's erasing whatever vestiges of journalistic credibility CNS might have in order to turn it into an anti-Obama propaganda mill.

This is nothing but crocodile dears. Jeffrey cares nothing about journalism, so he can't possibly care about its future.